DOCSLIB.ORG

Securitizing Berlin: the Legacy of the Iron Curtain

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Securitizing Berlin: the Legacy of the Iron Curtain Securitizing Berlin: The Legacy of the Iron Curtain EKATERINA MIZROKHI URBAN STUDIES, LEVEL III, UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO Abstract I. Introduction Since the Cold War, the city of Berlin has experi- To fully understand Berlin as a globalized city re- enced profound forces of globalization, facilitated by the quires an examination of the securitizing infl uence of the movement of people, capital and ideas across its borders. Berlin Wall. The Wall was constructed by the Soviets at the Richard Weizsaecker once said, “…in good and evil, Berlin height of the Cold War in 1961, separating the Allied forces is the trustee of German history, which has left its scars in the West from the Soviet forces in the East. This barrier here as nowhere else.”1 The city is ground zero for some bisected Berlin and was heavily securitized with guard tow- of the most infl uential confl icts of the 20th century, and it ers, trenches and death strips*, resulting in a splintering of is this complicated history that gives Berlin its unique global the city centre.2 Berlin was marked by a “concrete physical identity. Through a literature review, this paper will analyze scar four metres high” that partitioned the city into East how the Berlin Wall affected the way in which the city of and West.3 Berlin had morphed into a division between Berlin participated in the process of globalization. The se- two ideologies: capitalism and communism. The Wall was curitization of Berlin by means of the Wall was responsible dismantled in 1989, and although the city has been offi cially for uneven fl ows of capital, people, and ideas into the two unifi ed for a quarter of a century, the legacy of the Berlin halves of the city. Even long after German Reunifi cation, Wall persists to this day. The securitization of the city by the peculiar geographic legacies of the Berlin Wall perpetu- way of the Berlin Wall has resulted in a legacy of uneven ate an informal division between East and West Berlin that geographies of globalization due to the different ways East persists to this day. Berlin and West Berlin experienced the global fl ows of capital, people and ideas. Uneven Flows of Capital 1 Ladd, Brian. The Ghosts of Berlin: Confronting German History in the Urban Landscape. (Chicago, IL: U of Chicago. 1997). 3. *Aside from the symbolic concrete fence of the Berlin Wall, the area adja- cent to it called the “death strip” contained electric fences, trenches, beds of nails, and was constantly patrolled by border guards. 2Coaffee, Jon. and Murakami Wood, David. “Security is Coming Home: Rethinking Scale and Constructing Resilience in the Global Urban Response to Terrorist Risk.” International Relations. 20(4). (2006). 509. 3Saunders, Anna. “Remembering Cold War Division: Wall Remnants and Border Monuments in Berlin”. Journal of Contemporary European Studies. (2009). 17:1. 10. | 20 | II. Uneven Flow of Capital continues to informally divide the city along East-West divisions. The securitized separation of Berlin by way of the Berlin Wall is responsible for uneven global capital III. Uneven Flow of People fl ows, which privileged the economic development of West Berlin. East Berlin was under the socialist regime As a measure of securitization, the Berlin Wall of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), who was largely meant to control the inward and outward rejected Western models of market economies.4 West fl ow of people. The legacy of the Berlin Wall resulted Berlin, however, existed under a system of market capi- in distinct patterns of migration and settlement in the talism, profi ting from a 30-year head start that allowed city, which continue to perpetuate the informal divide for the establishment of a strong corporate presence between East and West. The most evident contrast is in and integration into the globalizing economic market the ethnic composition of migrants. Of the one million of the 20th century. Come reunifi cation in 1990, east- migrants living in Berlin today, West Berlin is home to ern industries had to compete with their more effi cient approximately 300 000 Turkish migrants who arrived in and established western counterparts, in which many West Germany as guest workers.14 To this day, Turkish eastern German companies went bankrupt5, while some immigrants distribute themselves unevenly across the disappeared completely.6 To this day, very few company city, clustering in enclaves that are historically localized in headquarters are located in the East, as it lacks the global West Berlin. These isolated groupings tend to function as functioning capabilities, such as trade and fi nancial infl u- parallel societies that fi nd social and economic support ence that global corporate headquarters require.7 Gov- networks within their own ethnic communities, creating ernment subsidies worth hundreds of billions of euros “self-organized living environments that avoid communi- have not been able to successfully alleviate the disparity8, cation with the majority society.”15 These parallel societ- further perpetuating East Berlin’s isolation from the glo- ies of Turkish migrants experience increasing impov- balized economic system of capital fl ows compared to erishment and alienation16, which results in pockets of West Berlin. Capitalism proved to be a better system for socioeconomic disparity throughout the city, along with creating wealth and raising living standards than Soviet the development of massive class inequalities in employ- communism9, but even post-reunifi cation, East Berlin’s ment, education, security, housing and the right to the wages and pensions are signifi cantly lower than in the city.17 Conversely, the Berlin Wall isolated East Germany West.10 Additionally, the unemployment rate in Berlin is from everyone but the Communist Bloc, which is why not evenly spread, with the former West experiencing approximately 500 000 Russian, Polish and Vietnamese far better employment levels than the East.11 Although migrants are found concentrated in East Berlin.18 The securitizing the city limited global capital fl ows and eco- distinct demographic compositions and spatial organiza- nomic prosperity in East Berlin, the city has made efforts tion of migrants has turned these ethnic enclaves into to improve economic inequality. In fact, since reunifi ca- “diasporic spaces”19 that boast distinct cultures, norms tion, West Berlin has dedicated more than $2 trillion in and institutions in both East and West. In order to fully economic aid in an attempt to help the East12, and East understand the history, patterns, and implications of mi- Berlin has made some progress in catching up to the per gration in both East and West Berlin, it must be explored capita income of the West.13 Nonetheless, the securitiza- as both a multicultural and securitized city. Although the tion of Berlin and the uneven capital fl ows have cre- Wall tore through the heart of Berlin, it planted the seed ated a polarized landscape of economic prosperity that for its complex multicultural identity. 4Hardt, John. “East-Central European Economies in Transition”. (1995). 10 Kratke, 515. ISBN 1-56324-612-0 11 Noack, 3. 5 Noack, Rick. “The Berlin Wall fell 25 years ago, but Germany is still 12 Matthews, 4. divided.” The Washington Post. October 31, 2014. Accessed October 10, 13 Noack, 3. 2015. http://www.washingtonpost.com/the-berlin-wall-fell-25-years- 14 Kil, Wolfgang. “From Kreuzberg to Marzahn: New Migrant Communities ago-but-germany-is-still-divided/. 2. in Berlin.” German Politics and Society. (2006). 81:24. No. 4. 99. 6 Kratke, Stefan. “City of Talents? Berlin’s Regional Economy, Socio-Spatial 15 Ibid, 99. Fabric and ‘Worst Practice’ Urban Governance.” International Journal of 16 Ibid, 100. Urban and Regional Research. (2004). 28:3. 514. 17 Balibar, Etienne. “Uprisings in the Banlieues”. Constellations. 14(1). 7 Beaverstock, Jonathan. “A Roster of World Cities.” Cities, 16(6). (1999). (2007). 57. 469. 18 Kil, 113. 8 Dick, Wolfgang. Germans still have ‘walls in heads’. Deutsche Welle. March 19 Ibid, 97. 10, 2013. Accessed October 10, 2015. http://www.dw.de/germans-still- have-walls-in-heads/a-17131880, 3. 9 Matthews, Chris. “Poor Germany: Why the east will never catch up to the west.” Time Inc: Fortune. November 9, 2014. Accessed October 10, 2015. | 21 | http://fortune.com/2014/11/09/germany-east-west-economy. 4. Nevertheless, it is potentially limiting to conceptualize distances during the rapidly globalizing 20th century, the securitization of Berlin and the fl ow of people in the securitizing infl uence of the Berlin Wall facilitated a a strictly binary manner. Although the Iron Curtain is time-space decompression that slowed the global fl ow of arguably one of the most commanding symbols of the ideas into the East along with the West. The movement 20th century, it is crucial to understand that it was not of ideas as a function of globalization forms the founda- an impermeable membrane, and that the experiences of tion of Berlin’s identity as it is known today. The notion easterners and westerners were not completely separate. of a modern, unifi ed Berlin is one that implies the vic- Countless documented cases exist of people crossing the tory of capitalism over communism – it is the infi ltration border in both directions. While three million East Ger- of Western ideals into what once was a largely socialist mans may have crossed into the West as refugees, there city.25 were still more than half a million West German idealists who crossed into the East, believing in the promises of The Berlin Wall was not just a physical barrier communism.20 Ultimately, the Berlin Wall’s securitizing that partitioned the city; it marked the division between force regulated the global fl ows of people, facilitating a capitalism and communism, who “rubbed against one reshuffl ing of Berlin’s population according to ideolo- another like seismic plates at the fl ashpoint.”26 This clash gies, and creating distinct patterns of migration and can still be felt today, due to the construction of par- ethnic segregation that exist to this day.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • CHAPTER 2 the Period of the Weimar Republic Is Divided Into Three
    CHAPTER 2 BERLIN DURING THE WEIMAR REPUBLIC The period of the Weimar Republic is divided into three periods, 1918 to 1923, 1924 to 1929, and 1930 to 1933, but we usually associate Weimar culture with the middle period when the post WWI revolutionary chaos had settled down and before the Nazis made their aggressive claim for power. This second period of the Weimar Republic after 1924 is considered Berlin’s most prosperous period, and is often referred to as the “Golden Twenties”. They were exciting and extremely vibrant years in the history of Berlin, as a sophisticated and innovative culture developed including architecture and design, literature, film, painting, music, criticism, philosophy, psychology, and fashion. For a short time Berlin seemed to be the center of European creativity where cinema was making huge technical and artistic strides. Like a firework display, Berlin was burning off all its energy in those five short years. A literary walk through Berlin during the Weimar period begins at the Kurfürstendamm, Berlin’s new part that came into its prime during the Weimar period. Large new movie theaters were built across from the Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial church, the Capitol und Ufa-Palast, and many new cafés made the Kurfürstendamm into Berlin’s avant-garde boulevard. Max Reinhardt’s theater became a major attraction along with bars, nightclubs, wine restaurants, Russian tearooms and dance halls, providing a hangout for Weimar’s young writers. But Berlin’s Kurfürstendamm is mostly famous for its revered literary cafés, Kranzler, Schwanecke and the most renowned, the Romanische Café in the impressive looking Romanische Haus across from the Memorial church.
    [Show full text]
  • Twenty Years After the Iron Curtain: the Czech Republic in Transition Zdeněk Janík March 25, 2010
    Twenty Years after the Iron Curtain: The Czech Republic in Transition Zdeněk Janík March 25, 2010 Assistant Professor at Masaryk University in the Czech Republic n November of last year, the Czech Republic commemorated the fall of the communist regime in I Czechoslovakia, which occurred twenty years prior.1 The twentieth anniversary invites thoughts, many times troubling, on how far the Czechs have advanced on their path from a totalitarian regime to a pluralistic democracy. This lecture summarizes and evaluates the process of democratization of the Czech Republic’s political institutions, its transition from a centrally planned economy to a free market economy, and the transformation of its civil society. Although the political and economic transitions have been largely accomplished, democratization of Czech civil society is a road yet to be successfully traveled. This lecture primarily focuses on why this transformation from a closed to a truly open and autonomous civil society unburdened with the communist past has failed, been incomplete, or faced numerous roadblocks. HISTORY The Czech Republic was formerly the Czechoslovak Republic. It was established in 1918 thanks to U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and his strong advocacy for the self-determination of new nations coming out of the Austro-Hungarian Empire after the World War I. Although Czechoslovakia was based on the concept of Czech nationhood, the new nation-state of fifteen-million people was actually multi- ethnic, consisting of people from the Czech lands (Bohemia, Moravia, and Silesia), Slovakia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia (today’s Ukraine), and approximately three million ethnic Germans. Since especially the Sudeten Germans did not join Czechoslovakia by means of self-determination, the nation- state endorsed the policy of cultural pluralism, granting recognition to the various ethnicities present on its soil.
    [Show full text]
  • Architecture in Berlin. a Walk Through History Instructor
    Course title: Architecture in Berlin. A Walk through History Instructor: Dr. Gernot Weckherlin Email address: [email protected] Track: A-Track Language of instruction: English Contact hours: 48 (6 per day) ECTS-Credits: 5 Prerequisites: Students should be able to speak and read English at the upper intermediate level (B2) or higher. Course description This course gives a wide overview of the development of public and private architecture in Berlin during the 19th, 20th and 21st centuries. Following an introduction to the urban development and architectural history of the Modern era, the Neo-Classical period will be surveyed with special reference to the works of Schinkel. This will be followed by classes on architecture of the German Reich after 1871, which was characterized by both modern and conservative tendencies and the manifold activities during the time of the Weimar Republic in the 1920s such as the Housing Revolution. The architecture of the Nazi period will be examined, followed by the developments in East and West Berlin after the Second World War. The course concludes with a detailed review of the city’s more recent and current architectural profiles, including an analysis of the conflicts concerning the re-design of Berlin after the Cold War and the German reunification. Seven walking tours to historically significant buildings and sites are included (Unter den Linden, Gendarmenmarkt, New Housing Estates, Chancellory, Potsdamer Platz, Holocaust Memorial etc.). The course aims to offer a deeper understanding of the interdependence of Berlin’s architecture and the city’s social and political structures. It considers Berlin as a model for the highways and by-ways of a European capital in modern times.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989
    FORUM The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989 ✣ Commentaries by Michael Kraus, Anna M. Cienciala, Margaret K. Gnoinska, Douglas Selvage, Molly Pucci, Erik Kulavig, Constantine Pleshakov, and A. Ross Johnson Reply by Mark Kramer and V´ıt Smetana Mark Kramer and V´ıt Smetana, eds. Imposing, Maintaining, and Tearing Open the Iron Curtain: The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2014. 563 pp. $133.00 hardcover, $54.99 softcover, $54.99 e-book. EDITOR’S NOTE: In late 2013 the publisher Lexington Books, a division of Rowman & Littlefield, put out the book Imposing, Maintaining, and Tearing Open the Iron Curtain: The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945–1989, edited by Mark Kramer and V´ıt Smetana. The book consists of twenty-four essays by leading scholars who survey the Cold War in East-Central Europe from beginning to end. East-Central Europe was where the Cold War began in the mid-1940s, and it was also where the Cold War ended in 1989–1990. Hence, even though research on the Cold War and its effects in other parts of the world—East Asia, South Asia, Latin America, Africa—has been extremely interesting and valuable, a better understanding of events in Europe is essential to understand why the Cold War began, why it lasted so long, and how it came to an end. A good deal of high-quality scholarship on the Cold War in East-Central Europe has existed for many years, and the literature on this topic has bur- geoned in the post-Cold War period.
    [Show full text]
  • Press Release (EN)
    Press Release 13 November 2019 For Immediate Release 8 pages Contact: Embassy of the Czech Republic, Eunmin Lim (Curator of the AAIPS Gallery) Tel.: 02) 3701-7340 E-mail: [email protected] www.aaips-gallery.com [email protected] "1989 Velvet Revolution – The Fall of the Iron Curtain” at the AAIPS Gallery A Photography Exhibition Organized by the Visegrád Group To Commemorate the 30th Anniversary of the Fall of the Communist Regime ■ The embassies of the four Visegrád countries – the Embassies of the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland and Hungary in Seoul – have organized a photography exhibition entitled "1989 Velvet Revolution – The Fall of the Iron Curtain” to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the fall of the communist regime. The exhibition will be held at the AAIPS Gallery of the Asan Institute for Policy Studies at Jongno-gu, Seoul, from November 16th until December 1st, 2019. ■ With the Czech presidency of the Visegrád Group in 2019/2020, the Embassy of the Czech Republic in Seoul invited the Embassies of the group's three other countries to cooperate in this exhibition, as the Czechoslovak Velvet Revolution is closely intertwined with the revolutions and events of the other nations of former communist bloc. ■ This exhibition brings a selection from a larger exhibition currently being held at the Prague Castle. A Castle spokesperson comments, "It is a selection of truly unique moments that often do not need any further words or explanations. The photographs accurately reflect the unique atmosphere, enthusiasm, hope, determination, and desire for freedom of that time. Outside and inside, there are screens showing the most important events.” ■ The viewers can see the best of Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Polish, Bulgarian, Romanian and German photographers.
    [Show full text]
  • The Marshall Plan and the Beginnings of Comecon
    THE MARSHALL PLAN AND THE BEGINNINGS OF COMECON Cristian BENȚE Abstract: The integration of the Eastern-European states into the Soviet Union’s sphere of influence at the end of the Second World War represented a complex process that aimed all the vital sectors in those states. In a relatively short period of time, the political, economic, social and cultural life of the Eastern-European states was radically transformed, according to the models imposed by Moscow. The Soviet Union imposed its control over Eastern Europe because it had strategic, political, military and economic interests in this region. The states in this region became, after the Soviet Union broke relations with its former Western allies, the main suppliers of resources for the recovery of the soviet economy. The soviet control over the Eastern-European economies took many forms: from the brutal transfer of raw materials, finite products and technology during the first years after the war, to more subtle methods, as the establishment of “mixed enterprises”, the initialization of bilateral agreements and finally by establishing the COMECON. The establishment of the COMECON in January 1949 was one of the measures taken by Moscow in order to counteract the effects of the Marshall Plan and to consolidate the Soviet influence in the satellite-states from Eastern Europe. This measure was preceded by other actions meant to strengthen Moscow’s political, economic and ideological control over these states. Keywords: Marshall Plan, COMECON, Cold War economic integration, Iron Curtain The launch of the Marshall Plan in the summer of 1947 and its rejection by the Soviet Union represents a turning point in the evolution of the Cold War.
    [Show full text]
  • Timeline of the Cold War
    Timeline of the Cold War 1945 Defeat of Germany and Japan February 4-11: Yalta Conference meeting of FDR, Churchill, Stalin - the 'Big Three' Soviet Union has control of Eastern Europe. The Cold War Begins May 8: VE Day - Victory in Europe. Germany surrenders to the Red Army in Berlin July: Potsdam Conference - Germany was officially partitioned into four zones of occupation. August 6: The United States drops atomic bomb on Hiroshima (20 kiloton bomb 'Little Boy' kills 80,000) August 8: Russia declares war on Japan August 9: The United States drops atomic bomb on Nagasaki (22 kiloton 'Fat Man' kills 70,000) August 14 : Japanese surrender End of World War II August 15: Emperor surrender broadcast - VJ Day 1946 February 9: Stalin hostile speech - communism & capitalism were incompatible March 5 : "Sinews of Peace" Iron Curtain Speech by Winston Churchill - "an "iron curtain" has descended on Europe" March 10: Truman demands Russia leave Iran July 1: Operation Crossroads with Test Able was the first public demonstration of America's atomic arsenal July 25: America's Test Baker - underwater explosion 1947 Containment March 12 : Truman Doctrine - Truman declares active role in Greek Civil War June : Marshall Plan is announced setting a precedent for helping countries combat poverty, disease and malnutrition September 2: Rio Pact - U.S. meet 19 Latin American countries and created a security zone around the hemisphere 1948 Containment February 25 : Communist takeover in Czechoslovakia March 2: Truman's Loyalty Program created to catch Cold War
    [Show full text]
  • US Army, Berlin, 1961-1994
    COLD WARRIORS, GOOD NEIGHBORS, SMART POWER: U.S. ARMY, BERLIN, 1961-1994 Rex A. Childers A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate College of Bowling Green State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY August 2015 Committee: Beth A. Griech-Polelle, Advisor Marc V. Simon Graduate Faculty Representative Bill Allison Michael E. Brooks © 2015 Rex Childers All Rights Reserved iii ABSTRACT Beth Griech-Polelle, Advisor The end of the Cold War and the manner in which it was “won” by the Allied nations ignited debate over the utility of military power as a source of American leadership in the new unipolar world. A popular theme arose, that a new form of state power, soft power, had the capacity to achieve America’s interests as it prepared to enter the 21st century. The idea that expensive and dangerous technologies could be replaced by investments in peaceful means of influence, wielded by America’s foreign policy professionals to foster a new cooperative spirit in the world, was naturally attractive. The United States could be relieved of much of its global military presence and reduce its military’s intrusions upon foreign people and their cultures. This dissertation challenges the assumption that the impact of military stationing in the Cold War was limited to hard power. In the case of the U.S. Army in Berlin, the unit and its members practiced civic, social, cultural, and political behaviors that meet the criteria of the post-Cold War branded term, soft power. In their daily interactions with Berliners, they exercised the full spectrum of foreign policy smart power tools, as Cold Warrior defenders of West Berlin and in compliance with U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Building of the Berlin Wall
    BUILDING OF THE BERLIN WALL a A CITY TORN APART b A CITY TORN APART OF BUILDING THE BERLIN WALL in conjunction with a symposium given on 27 OCTOBER 2011 at the NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION WASHINGTON, DC WASHINGTON, DC RECORDS ADMINISTRATION NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND at the 27 OCTOBER 2011 in conjunction with a symposium given on BUILDING BERLIN WALL OF ITY TORN APART A C BUILDING OF THE BERLIN WALL brandenburg gate Built in 1791, standing 85 feet high, 215 feet long and 36 feet wide, this former city gate is one of the most iconic symbols of Berlin and Germany. Throughout its existence it has served as a visual representation of various political ideologies, ranging from Prussia’s imperialism to East Germany’s communism. It was closed by the East Germans on 14 August 1961 in a response to West Berliners’ demonstration against the building of the wall dividing their city into East and West. It remained closed until 22 December 1989. Its design is based upon the gate way to the Propylaea, the entry into the Acropolis in Athens, Greece. It has 12 Doric columns, six to a side, forming five passageways. The central archway is crowned by the Quadriga, a statue consisting of a four horse chariot driven by Victoria, the Roman goddess of victory. After Napoleon’s defeat, the Quadriga was returned to Berlin and the wreath of oak leaves on Victoria was replaced with the new symbol of Prussia, the Iron Cross. i A CITYC ITY TORNTO RN APART a family divided A couple from Berlin may never see each other again because they became separated by the newly formed Berlin Wall.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 SYLLABUS for HIS 2721 Cities at War: Berlin Summer, 2018 Instructor
    1 SYLLABUS for HIS 2721 Cities at War: Berlin Summer, 2018 Instructor: Brian M. Cohen; Program Director: Christie Herbert; Support Specialist: Andy Donahue Course Description This 3-credit course explores the experiences and memories of the people and culture of urban centers during times of war. Students will directly engage with the physical, social, cultural, and historical artifacts of the city under exploration, and thus, social and cultural, as well as military, histories will be studied. Students begin their examination of a city at war with an overview of the key historical and cultural features of the city under review, including the rise to power of the wartime government and the methods the political leadership utilizes to expand and consolidate power. Students continue their urban exploration by identifying the different groups of city inhabitants and exploring their experiences during wartime. Students conclude their study of cities at war with a critical examination of the process of reconstruction, historical memory/memorializing, and the inherent controversy of historical memory as the city rebuilds in a post-war era. Students are assessed throughout the course on their ability to actively engage and participate in the daily class activities as well as at the end of each of the three modules through a primary source analysis, critical analysis paper, and visual presentation. Upper division students will also lead a class discussion, critically respond to a reading, and complete additional historical thinking components for each assessment that demonstrate appropriate depth and analysis. Specifically, the Berlin at War study abroad course centers on that capital city’s history during WWII, from both German and Allied perspectives, though emphasis is placed on the “everyday” experiences of the diverse groups of Berlin citizens under Nazi rule and during wartime.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iron Curtain As an Aspect of the Sovietisation of Eastern Europe in 1949–1953
    Studia z Dziejów Rosji i Europy Środkowo-Wschodniej ■ LII-SI(1) Paweł Bielicki Institute of Political Sciences, Kazimierz Wielki University The Iron Curtain as an Aspect of the Sovietisation of Eastern Europe in 1949–1953 Zarys treści: Sowietyzacja była kluczowym etapem prowadzącym do utrwalenia „żelaznej kur- tyny” na terenie Europy Wschodniej i pełnego podporządkowania krajów wschodnioeuro- pejskich Związkowi Radzieckiemu. W artykule omawiam rożne aspekty sowietyzacji, m.in. wymiar ustrojowy, gospodarczy oraz wojskowy. W ostatniej z wyżej wymienionych dziedzin pozwoliłem sobie na wyartykułowanie przyczyn, które sprawiły, że władze sowieckie pod- jęły decyzję o przeprowadzeniu przyspieszonej sowietyzacji w dziedzinie militarnej na terenie Europy Wschodniej. Ważnym elementem niniejszego artykułu jest też kwestia prześladowa- nia Kościoła w państwach zdominowanych przez ZSRR. W podsumowaniu nakreślam konse- kwencje omawianych w artykule wydarzeń dla współczesnej rzeczywistości politycznej krajów postkomunistycznych w wymiarze politycznym, gospodarczym oraz społecznym. Outline of content: Sovietisation was the key stage leading to the strengthening of the Iron Curtain sealing off Eastern Europe and to the total subjugation of Eastern European countries to the Soviet Union. In the article, the author discusses various aspects of Sovietisation, emphasising its political, economic and military aspects, including the reasons underlying the decision taken by the Soviet leaders to step up the pace of Sovietisation in the military field in Eastern Europe. An important part of the present study is also the question of the persecution of the Church in the states dominated by the USSR. In the conclusions, the author discusses the consequences of the described developments for the contemporary political situation of the post-communist countries in their political, economic and social aspects.
    [Show full text]
  • Secrecy and State Capacity: a Look Behind the Iron Curtain
    Secrecy and State Capacity: A Look Behind the Iron Curtain Mark Harrison February 2017 No: 1134 Warwick Economics Research Papers ISSN 2059-4283 (online) ISSN 0083-7350 (print) Secrecy and State Capacity: A Look Behind the Iron Curtain Mark Harrison* Department of Economics and Centre on Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy, University of Warwick; Centre for Russian, European, and Eurasian Studies, University of Birmingham Abstract This paper reviews two decades of research on the political economy of secrecy, based on the records of former Soviet state and party archives. Secrecy was an element of Soviet state capacity, particularly its capacity for decisiveness, free of the pressures and demands for accountability that might have arisen from a better informed citizenry. But secrecy was double-edged. Its uses also incurred substantial costs that weakened the capacity of the Soviet state to direct and decide. The paper details the costs of secrecy associated with “conspirative” government business processes, adverse selection of management personnel, everyday abuses of authority, and an uninformed leadership. Acknowledgements This is a paper to the International Workshop on Cultures of Secrecy in Soviet Life, Zurich, 25 to 27 January 2017. A preliminary version was presented, under another title, to a Roundtable on Secrecy and Fact in Soviet Life at the Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies Convention, Philadelphia, 20 November 2015. I thank Ekaterina Emeliantseva Koller, Asif Siddiqui, and the participants for discussion. This revised version is to a considerable extent an exercise in self-citation. I am grateful to Michael Ellman and Vladimir Kontorovich for comments; responsibility for remaining errors is mine.
    [Show full text]